Posted on 04/10/2006 10:11:19 AM PDT by CompProgrammer
I was listening to Rush and thinking about our Washington politicians. Is it time for a third party, the "Wall" party? I don't have the experience, contacts, or skills to know where to start on this, but here is what I would run on.
This is all I can think of in my currently angry state. Please embellish on this.
And there woulnd't have been the 1994 conservative takeover of the House either.
The losses of Ford to Carter in 1976 and the loss of Bush to Clinton in 1992 are the two best things to happen to the conservative movement in last 50 years.
Each of the 12 million illegals should be made to put their fair share of effort into building this wall, right before they are placed on the other side of it.
The GOP House held the line. And enough GOP Senators apparently were willing to filibuster the "compromise" to block that as well.
I do agree the GOP has their feet in the waters of the Rubicon. But they haven't crossed it yet and are now just milling about in the stream. We'll see which bank they end up on, but so far so good - they aren't moving forward on amnesty for now.
See that's the problem - it shouldn't take a fillibuster to defeat an amnesty program when the Republicans have a 10 seat edge in the senate. It's all irrelevant anyway as Bush would most certainly veto any bill that included a wall.
I really want to see the Republican Party's official position on illegal immigration.
And we could fill the canal with sharks with frickin' laser beams on their heads!
The RINOs have realized they can join with the Dem moderates and be the kingmakers - witness the Gang of 14. But the GOP can still filibuster if the RINOs get too big for their britches, which is what seems to have happened with the Senate "compromise".
It's all irrelevant anyway as Bush would most certainly veto any bill that included a wall.
Well, then, that just means we have our work cut out in 2008, doesn't it, to get a president in there who will defend the borders.
I really want to see the Republican Party's official position on illegal immigration.
And that will be a battle royale for the 2008 convention. Until then, the official position will be whatever gets passed and signed by Bush.
We don't have the money for sharks, we'd have to use seabass - lol
I was one of them (I was enraged about the broken tax pledge), and I voted for Harry Browne in 1996. I was idealistic, but ineffective, and to my surprise, the Republicans didn't call me to apologize for their transgressions. I came sulking back into the Republican party in 2000.
I hold myself personally responsible for allowing 8 years of The Rapist and The Enabler. I learned from it, though--ours is a two-party system, and any third party merely weakens the main party from which its voters come.
I'm still often enraged at the Republicans, but they're a whole lot better than the Democrats.
Actually, your talk of a canal and new waterfront property is a keen idea. Rich lefties could snatch up the new property and if the illegals dared set their dirty peasant feet on it they'd be positively screaming for law enforcement.
I cheered on Ralph Nader and his Green Party/Reform Party run, for the same reasons the MSM cheered on the Little General during his two runs.
Exactly.
Mr Sucking Sound won, because GHW Bush in his last debate was so lethargic he looked like he would not live out a second term. If you remember he had some chronic physical problems that were taking their toll although he evidently has recuperated. Also remember the tax increase after the "read my lips, no new taxes".. Really you guys need to bone up on your history.
Then the GOP, never to learn from history runs a 73 year old Dole.
As long as they are ill-tempered.
very well stated....sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.
correct....but once again dont forget what the NRA can and can't do for a candidate. There are a whole bunch of so called Regan democrats out there that will vote 'Union' if the NRA isn't putting up a candidate for consideration...and the NRA did not pick one candidate over another. thanks to papa Bush's ban of some semi-automatic rifles as well as other gun control efforts. By being a gun control RINO he slapped the face of a good chunk of his base.
You also remember that Clintoon got 43% of the popular vote in 1992, and Perot got 19%. Most of Perot's votes were from conservatives pi$$ed off at Bush 41 for violating his "Read My Lips" pledge and agreeing to go along with the Dims on a tax increase/spending cut to help balance the budget.
The Dims welshed out on the spending cuts, and Conservatives elected Clintoon by throwing their vote away on a mentally unstable billionaire.
History.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.